Firearms

Charge the victim with homicide for protecting his life with a legally carried weapon? Absurd. From liberallogic101.com:

A janitor who was held down and beaten with a baseball bat by three attackers in Milwaukee, Wisconsin may face formal charges for shooting and killing two of his assailants with the gun that he is legally allowed to carry.

On Wednesday afternoon, the currently unidentified maintenance worker was accosted by three young individuals while he was changing the locks at an apartment located in a rough area of Milwaukee. The three assailants mistook the janitor for the building manager and attacked him over the fact that one of their friends was put on notice for eviction.

Two of the individuals held down the 39-year old man while a third one beat him with a baseball bat. The maintenance worker was able to free himself and fatally shoot two of the attackers with his concealed carry permitted gun.

The two attackers who died were James Bell, Jr., 19, and Anmarie Miller, 17. The surviving attacker, aged 20, was arrested on suspicion of substantial battery, but was released without charges Friday.

A representative from the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office says the case is under review by their homicide unit — but there is no word yet about possible charges.

Okay, someone has put something in the water at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; this is the second ruling in a row where they’ve defended the right to bear arms in self defense against hyper-restrictive California laws. This time, they smacked down the Yolo County Sheriff:

Just weeks after striking down the San Diego County “good cause” requirement as burdensome to the exercise of the Second Amendment, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Yolo County, CA’s requirement that a concealed carry applicant “prove they face a threat of violence or robbery” before being allowed to carry a gun.

The Court in its new-found crush on the Bill of Rights found that the application of the “good cause” rule in Yolo “impermissibly” infringed the plaintiffs 2nd Amendment rights. While the ruling only applies to the county in question, it seems to me this is another wedge in the door that opens the way for a state-wide ruling.

A proposed Idaho bill would nullify future federal gun laws by prohibiting state enforcement of any federal act relating to personal firearms, a firearm accessories or ammunition. It passed the state senate on Wednesday by a vote of 34-0, with one member not voting.

Introduced by the State Affairs Committee, the Idaho Federal Firearm, Magazine and Register Ban Enforcement Act, or SB1332, would

“protect Idaho law enforcement officers from being directed, through federal executive orders, agency orders, statutes, laws, rules, or regulations enacted or promulgated on or after the effective date of this act, to violate their oath of office and Idaho citizens’ rights under Section 11, Article I, of the Constitution of the State of Idaho.”

I'm surprised that this ruling came out of the 9th Circuit. Originally on blogs.wsj.com:

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that the Second Amendment endows the right to carry a gun outside the home. The opinion comes days before the Supreme Court is expected to decide whether to review two other cases that ask the question of whether the right to “bear arms” extends beyond the home.

The California-based appeals court, in a 2-1 ruling authored by Judge Diarmuid O’Scannlain, delved into American history, from the Founding Era forward, and found support for the notion that “bearing arms” means carrying a gun in public:

So concludes our analysis of text and history: the carrying of an operable handgun outside the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense, though subject to traditional restrictions, constitutes “bear[ing] Arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment.

The case comes from San Diego County, which, according to state law, requires residents to show “good cause” for carrying a concealed handgun. Personal safety alone does not qualify as good cause. The question for the court was whether the requirement infringes on the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms.